The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I enjoyed this adaptation of Shakespeare's classic comedy, and thought the big name cast did well in bringing the iconic characters to life. The star power perhaps won't have the same effect on students watching it now as part of their studies, but it's still a good adaptation.I thought it particular Calista Flockhart shone, but Kevin Kline also has his moments.A solid adaptation.

a charming adaptation. loyal to the play, using few modern pieces, beautiful cinematography, perfect cast. a film who reminds the colors, the flavors, the joy, the humor of a lovely masterpiece. all is fresh. all is seductive. and, in few scenes, almost perfect. a film who seems invent again an universe but, in fact, only impose its true nuances. Kevin Kline's work is gorgeous and Rupert Everett seems be the perfect Oberon. the wood, the story of the two couples, the delicate story of Tysbe, the grace of atmosphere of an Athens who seems between periods, all does the film a seductive adventure. and that is not surprising. only admirable because the simplicity is not easy to create in the case of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I enjoyed a great deal about this production. The music was a plus, it was colourful, and happily not to much in the way of special effects. All the actors did well although I thought Rupert Everett was miscast. Oberon should be an older more macho presence in my view, Mr. Everett seemed too young and as a gay man didn't bring enough to the part. (Although he may have chuckled to himself playing as he was, the king of the fairies.)Kevin Kline was terrific as bottom. Stanley Tucci good as Puck, and Calista Flockhart showed what she could do as Helena. Sophie Marceau, a luminous Hippolyta not given enough to do. I could have done without the bikes, too modern they seemed out of place. All told, a pleasant watch that could have been a lot better.

The movie "A Midsummer Night's Dream" directed by Michael Hoffman was just about two hours long, the average length of a movie, but it was the longest two hours of my life. This misguided attempt at a classic uses many lines from the play, but the way the actors struggle getting the language down-pat changes the interesting, fun, and engaging script to a boring mess. In the book, Bottom (portrayed by Kevin Kline) thinks he is something extra special, as he does in some moments of the movie, but as they tried to add some depth to his character, we saw moments where he felt dejected, which didn't really flow with the character Shakespeare originally intended Bottom to be. It is also worth mentioning that although Titania did have a train of fairies in both the book and the movie, Shakespeare wrote them as male and Hoffman used female sprites. Oscar nominee Michelle Pfeiffer is a talented actress with a lot of experience, but perhaps not the best casting choice for Titania. Although she has the beauty and grace of the fairy queen, she seemed uncomfortable making lengthy speeches. On the other hand, I was surprised to see Calista Flockhart do a great portrayal of desperate Helena and use her frog-like facial features to entice the audience to watch the scenes. Unfortunately, Calista Flockhart provides some of the only star quality in the entire film. There are some strange contradictory moments; for example, when Robin says he will "Put a girdle round the earth in forty minutes", just like it is written in the play, he uses a turtle (a notable representative of slow movement) to get around. The plot of the movie is crucial to a story like this, and although it usually stays on point with Shakespeare's play, there are momentary lapses that don't fit in- like the use of the bicycles, which is just silly. The complex love quadrangle between Hermia, Lysander, Helena and Demetrius is recognizable, but not quite as tragic and confusing as you can picture when reading the book. This play is supposed to be a comedy, but the only laughter comes a brief moment at the end of the movie where a dog (which isn't in William Shakespeare's version) comes running onto the stage during the tradesmen's performance. Other than that, the humour is turned into boredom. Another reason why I found this movie boring was because it was not aesthetically pleasing. The set looks extremely unreal and there is not much more to elaborate about it. Likewise, I found the costuming to have little excitement, and I was especially disappointed with Bottom's ensemble. I had pictured an actual ass-head when reading the book, but all he had was donkey ears and some excess hair. The type of music was passable, but the sheer volume of it was unsatisfying. The only part of the setting that was identical to the book was which scenes took place at night and which scenes took place during the day. I would not recommend watching the 1999 film version of A Midsummer Night's Dream to anyone that gets confused easily, or any students having a test on the play. Instead of understanding the play more because of watching the play and getting to see the set and characters' body language, I am more perplexed than ever. There are obvious similarities, like many parts of the script and the relationships between the characters, but there is a dictionary full of differences- one huge one being that it takes place several centuries later in history. If you are in the mood to see a dramatic, romantic comedy, I suggest watching Enchanted, which brought in double the laughs, smiles, gasps and money in the U.S. Box Office.